Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1954–2000 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lindroth v. Walgreen Co.green1 sentence1962Burroughs, a motion for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict presents the single question whether there is in the record any evidence which, standing alone and taken with all its intendments most favorable to the plaintiff, here, tends to prove the material elements of his case; only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion reached does reversible error on this account appear; the inquiry is whether the result reached is reasonable on the facts in evidence, not whether other conclusions might also have been reached: Lindroth v. Walg | 1 | 1 |
Wilkerson v. McCarthygreen1 sentence1954Ed. 916 ; and that the assumption that, on an issue of liability, ‘juries will invariably decide * * * against railroads’ is ‘contrary to fact/ and courts may not act on the theory that ‘juries will fall short of a fair performance of their constitutional function/ but they must assume that a jury ‘finds facts only because they are proved,' Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 69 S. Ct. 413, 417, 418 .” In reversing the judgment of the trial court in this case, the Appellate Court placed great stress on evidence of the plaintiff’s conduct at the time of his injury. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lavender v. Kurn
green
2 sentences1954Ed. 520 ; that in any choice between possible inference ‘a measure of speculation and conjecture is required on the part of those whose duty it is to settle the dispute by choosing what seems to them to be the most reasonable inference/ but ‘Only when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion reached does reversible error appear,' Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645, 653 , 66 S. Ct. 740, 744 , 90 L. 1954Ed. 520 ; that in any choice between possible inference ‘a measure of speculation and conjecture is required on the part of those whose duty it is to settle the dispute by choosing what seems to them to be the most reasonable inference/ but ‘Only when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion reached does reversible error appear,' Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645, 653 , 66 S. Ct. 740, 744 , 90 L. | 2 | 1954–1983 |
Department of Revenue v. Marion Sopko, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000App. 3d at 956 , 406 N.E.2d at 190 . 2000“We are not free, as reviewing judges,” the court noted, “to reweigh the evidence, and only when there is an absence of probative facts to support a conclusion reached does reversible error appear.” Sopko, 84 Ill. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Roth v. Meeker
green
1 sentence1983App. 3d 66, 80 , 389 N.E.2d 1248 .) Only when there is a complete absence of probative facts with which to support the conclusion reached does reversible error occur. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Glass v. Peitchel
green
1 sentence1980(Glass v. Peitchel (1978), 63 Ill. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Schulenburg v. Signatrol, Inc.
green
2 sentences1978(Schulenburg v. Signatrol, Inc. (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 352 , 226 N.E.2d 624 .) Reviewing judges are therefore not free to reweigh the evidence, and only where there is an absence of probative facts to support a conclusion reached does reversible error appear. 1978(Schulenburg v. Signatrol, Inc. (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 352 , 226 N.E.2d 624 .) Reviewing judges are therefore not free to reweigh the evidence, and only where there is an absence of probative facts to support a conclusion reached does reversible error appear. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Schaefer v. Checker Taxi Co.
neutral
1 sentence1978(Schaefer v. Checker Taxi Co. (1976), 41 Ill. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Nystrom v. Bub
green
1 sentence1967Since, only where there is complete absence of probative facts to support a conclusion reached does reversible error appear on account of denial of directed verdict (Nystrom v. Bub, 36 Ill App2d 333, 345-346, 184 NE2d 273 (1962)), this court finds no merit in defendant’s first point. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Ritter v. Hatteberg
neutral
1 sentence1967The law binding on courts of review in the State of Illinois on the contention that the finding of the jury is against the manifest weight of the evidence is clearly stated in Ritter v. Hatteberg, supra: “A verdict based upon conflicting evidence and approved by the trial judge should not be disturbed on appeal unless contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.